3': 
5 


m 


THE  WINNING  OF 
NEVADA 

FOR 

WOMAN 
SUFFRAGE 

Including    Oration  of  Hon.   Curtis 

J.  Hilly  er,  Delivered  Before  a 

Joint  Session  of  the  Nevada 

Legislature  in  1869.    An 

Unanswerable  Argu- 

ment for  the  Suf- 

frage Cause. 


Copyright,  1916 

Published  by 
THE  NEVADA   PRINTING   COMPANY 

Caraon,  Nevada 

PRICE  10  CENTS 


THE  WINNING  OF 
NEVADA 

FOR 

WOMAN 
SUFFRAGE 

Including    Oration   of   Hon.    Curtis 
J.  Hilly er,  Delivered  Before  a 
Joint  Session  of  the  Nevada 
Legislature  in  1869.    An 
Unanswerable  Argu- 
ment for  the  Suf- 
frage Cause. 

AT     if 

Copyright,  1916 

Published  by 
THE  NEVADA   PRINTING   COMPANY 

Carson,  Nevada 

PRICE  1O  CENTS 


\NNE  MARTIN  GIFT 
ANCROFT  LIBRARY 


THE   WINNING  OF  NEVADA 

FOR 

WOMAN   SUFFRAGE 


To  secure  to  the  women  of  Nevada  the  right  to  vote 
was  a  long  and  hard-fought  contest  and  covered  a 
period  of  forty-two  years,  but  when  achievement  fin  al- 
ly came  it  was  with  cyclonic  force  both  in  legislative 
phase  and  in  the  battle  of  ballots  that  followed,  indi- 
cating what  a  wonderful  change  of  sentiment  had 
taken  place  in  two  generations'  time.  And,  strange 
as  it  may  seem,  in  the  final  days  of  the  struggle,  Ne- 
vada was  known  as  a  "wide-open"  state,  and  much 
of  its  electorate  consisted  of  those  who,  by  reason  of 
their  vocation,  were  supposed  to  be  against  any  meas- 
ure giving  women  the  voting  power.  But  this  element 
offered  no  concerted  opposition;  on  the  other  hand, 
many  individual  members  of  the  class  were  strongly 
in  favor  of  granting  to  women  the  right  to  be  placed 
on  an  equality  with  men. 

But  now  that  suffrage  has  come  everybody,  almost 
without*  exception,  is  pleased  with  it,  and  men  who 
opposed  it  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  struggle  now 
vie  with  the  proponents  in  an  endeavor  to  induce 
women  to  take  a  more  prominent  place  in  politics, 
even  to  accession  to  office,  and  no  doubt  this  year's 
elections  will  witness  many  elective  positions  in  Ne- 
vada occupied  by  women. 

It  was  in  the  legislature  of  1869,  contemporaneous 
with  the  passage  of  a  suffrage  measure  by  the  legis- 


lature  of  Wyoming',  that  the  question  of  equal  suf- 
frage was  first  presented  to  the  people  of  Nevada,  and 
it  came  in  the  shape  of  a  resolution,  introduced  by 
Hon.  Curtis  J.  Hillyer,  in  the  assembly.  It  was  first 
decried,  disparaged  and  ridiculed,  and  when  finally 
put  to  a  vote  it  was  "laid  on  the  table."  But  a  few 
days  later  it  was  resurrected  through  the  efforts  of 
Mr.  Hillyer,  and  following  an  argument  by  him,  de- 
livered in  the  presence  of  the  members  of  both  houses, 
and  which  for  oratory  and  presentation  of  facts  has 
never  been  excelled,  the  resolution  passed  by  a  vote 
of  25  to  11.  It  then  went  to  the  senate  and  passed 
that  body  by  a  vote  of  12  to  4.  Passing  through  other 
formalities  it  went  to  the  governor  and  the  secretary 
of  state. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  legislature,  1871,  no  trace 
of  the  bill,  which  had  been  received  by  the  governor 
two  years  before,  could  be  found,  and  as  the  laws  of 
Nevada  require  that  all  constitutional  amendments 
shall  be  favorably  passed  upon  by  two  consecutive 
legislatures  and  that  no  substitute  for  a  signed  and 
"lost"  bill  can  avail,  the  measure  died  with  this  ses- 
sion. Whatever  became  -of  the  signed  resolution  or 
who  was  responsible  for  "losing"  it,  are  matters  that 
have  never  been  explained. 

Further  legislative  action  on  suffrage  remained 
quiescent  until  1895,  though  the  people  of  the  state, 
however,  had  not  lost  interest  in  the  question  in  the 
intervening  years.  They  agitated  it  continually  and 
this  year — 1895 — they  were  strong  enough  to  get  it  be- 
fore the  legislature  ;and  compel  its  passage,  but  the  fol- 
lowing legislature,  which  met  in  1897,  two  years  after, 
defeated  it  by  a  tie  vote. 


The  next  fourteen  years  saw  a  great  agitation  of 
the  suffrage  cause  throughout  the  state,  but  it  was  not 
again  made  a  legislative  issue  till  1911,  when  it  passed 
the  assembly  by  a- vote  of  31  to  13,  and  the  senate  by 
a  vote  of  16  to  2.  Coming  up  again  at  the  legislative 
session  of  1913  it  passed  the  assembly  by  a  vote  of 
49  to  3,  and  the  senate  19  to  3.  Hon.  Tasker  L.  Oddie, 
who  was  then  governor,  signed  the  resolution  and 
transmitted  it  to  Secretary  of  State  Brodigan,  who 
placed  it  on  the  ballot  for  ratification  or  rejection  at 
the  general  elections  of  1914.  During  the  campaign, 
which  covered  a  period  of  four  months,  many  promi- 
nent anti-suffragists  were  brought  to  the  state  from 
all  parts  of  the  Union  to  talk  against  the  measure,  but 
despite  their  efforts,  their  eloquent  and  specious  sup- 
plications that  women  did  not  want  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, the  measure  passed  by  a  vote  of  10,936  to  7,258. 
At  this  election  the  highest  vote  cast  was  for  the 
candidates  for  United  States  senator  and  the  total  was 
21,567,  indicating  that  considerably  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  men  of  the  state  who  voted  favored  grant- 
ing the  right  of  suffrage  to  women,  so  it  cannot  be  said 
that  the  measure  " slipped"  through. 

In  the  various  stages  through  which  the  suffrage 
agitation  passed  in  Nevada  between  the  years  1869 
and  1911,  it  found  supporters  and  was  discussed  from 
all  angles  by  men  and  women  who  have  gained  dis- 
tinction and  honor  in  all  walks  of  life.  Many  of  them 
made  national  reputations  in  their  calling.  Among  the 
number  may  be  mentioned  United  States  Senators 
Francis  G.  Newlands  and  Key  Pittman,  the  late  Dr. 
J.  E.  Stubbs,  president  of  the  University  of  Nevada; 
Hon.  Frank  IT.  Norcross,  present  Chief  Justice  of  the 


Supreme  Court  of  Nevada ;  Mrs.  C.  B.  Noreross,  mother 
of  Justice  Noreross  and  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
women  of  the  West,  and  Mrs.  J.  R.  Williamson.  The 
last  two  have  passed  to  the  Great  Beyond — departed 
ere  they  saw  the  fruition  of  their  hopes — but  the 
thoughts  and  expressions  which  they  left  behind  did 
much  in  creating  sentiment  for  the  cause  which  their 
lives  had  been  devoted  to.  Mrs.  Noreross  was  a  writer 
of  more  than  ordinary  ability  and  from  an  article 
written  by  her  and  published  in  the  Eeno  Gazette  in 
December,  1897,  we  excerpt  the  following: 

"The  Creator  never  intended  woman  to  take  a  sub- 
ordinate place  on  this  planet  earth,  for  He  gave  to  her 
the  power  to  decide  the  physical  and  mental  capacity 
of  the  human  race  in  its  pre-natal  life.  He  endowed 
her  with  the  truest,  the  most  unselfish  and  the  most 
enduring  love  the  world  has  ever  known  for  the  pur- 
pose of  caring  for  and  guarding  humanity's  young 
life  and  helping  to  make  good  and  useful  laws  for  its 
protection  all  through  its  mortal  existence  *  *  *. 

"The  mothers  of  the  world  should  have  all  the  liberty 
that  civilization  can  give,  that  they  may  develop  every 
faculty  of  their  being,  that  the  world  may  have  as 
royal  a  birthright  as  possible  *  *  *.  By  dwarfing 
the  mother  mind  and  denying  her  equal  rights  in  the 
government  of  nations  the  loss  in  physical  and  mental 
power  and  in  better  government  has  been  enormous. 
This  old  belief  in  the  divine  right  of  kings  to  rule 
nations  and  the  divine  right  of  men  to  rule  women  is 
a  relic  of  barbarism  *  *  *.  A  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand,  neither  can  the  nation,  which  is 
but  a  larger  house,  stand  when  it,  likewise,  is  divided 
against  itself.  That  there  may  be  no  division,  men  and 


women  together  must  make  the  laws  under  which 
both  are  to  be  governed.  For  one-half  of  the  nation 
to  make  all  the  laws  for  the  government  of  the  whole 
can  never  be  just  to  the  other  half." 

In  all  the  discussions,  spoken  and  written,  that 
have  been  made  in  favor  of  equal  suffrage,  it  is  not 
likely  that  any  have  covered  the  ground  more  thor- 
oughly, more  in  detail,  than  did  the  address  that  was 
made  by  Hon.  Curtis  J.  Hilly er  before  a  joint  session 
of  the  state  legislature  in  Carson  City  in  1869.  It  was 
delivered  at  a  time  when  the  cause  of  woman  suffrage 
was  practically  new  and  had  been  agitated  only  in 
small  circles  and  communities.  In  no  state  in  the 
union  had  it  become  an  issue  except  in  Nevada  and 
Wyoming.  When  Mr.  Hillyer  presented  the  question 
to  the  Nevada  legislature  it  was  in  the  face  of  violent 
opposition,  but  given  an  opportunity  to  express  his 
sentiments  he  made  an  argument  that  was  practically 
invincible  and  to  this  day— forty-seven  years  later — 
has  not  and  cannot  be  answered,  and  his  conclusions 
are  just  as  pertinent  now  as  they  were  then. 

Mr.  Hillyer  was  a  member  of  the  legislature  which 
he  addressed,  representing  Storey  County,  of  which 
Virginia  City  was  and  is  now  the  county  seat.  He 
was  a  native  of  Ohio,  born  of  revolutionary  stock,  and 
had  had  the  advantages  of  splendid  training  and  a 
liberal  education.  Attracted  to  Nevada  directly  after 
the  Civil  War,  by  the  discoveries  of  gold  and  silver, 
he  came  to  the  Comstock,  as  Virginia  City  was  then 
known,  and  engaged  in  the  practice  of  law.  His  rise 
was  phenomenal  almost,  and  in  two  or  three  years  he 
was  known  as  one  of  the  great  thinkers  and  orators 
of  the  West.  He  remained  in  Nevada  till  the  subsi- 


dence  of  the  Comstock  boom,  when  he  returned  East, 
settling  in  Washington  City,  where  he  died  a  few 
years  ago,  respected  and  loved  by  all.  His  address, 
which,  by  legislative  action,  has  become  a  part  of  the 
history  of  Nevada,  follows: 


The  proposed  amendment  to  the  suffrage  clause  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State  of  Nevada,  striking  the  word  "male"  there- 
from, 'being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Hilly er  said: 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  propose  to  take  this  occasion  to  express  my 
views  upon  this  subject  at  such  length  as  shall  seem  to  me  to  be 
necessary,  and  as  its  importance  shall  seem  to  deserve. 

I  will  say,  in  the  outset,  that  I  hope  the  discussion  upon  it 
will  not  be  closed  today.  I  am  glad  that  it  has  commenced  thus 
early,  for  I  believe  it  is  necessary  for  its  proper  consideration. 
And  I  hope  that  when  that  shall  have  been  said  upon  it  which 
members  shall  desire  to  day,  we  shall  have  further  time  for  its 
discussion. 

Sir,  in  a  Kepublkan  government,  there  is  no  question  which 
is  so  interesting  as  that  of  the  suffrage.  It  is  the  base  upon 
which  the  whole  superstructure  rests,  and  upon  the  quality  of 
which  depends  its  stability  and  its  duration.  Our  fundamental 
constitution,  the  laws  which  are  passed  in  pursuance  of  those 
constitutions,  and  the  officers  elected  to  execute  those  laws,  are 
all  dependent  for  their  character  upon  the  ballot.  I  presume, 
sir,  that  it  does  not  need  one  word  from  me  to  any  member  on 
this  floor — all  of  us  the  mere  breath  of  the  ballot — to  induce  him 
to  give  that  attention  to  which  it  is  entitled,  to  any  discussion 
which  involves  the  character  and  composition  of  the  constituent 
body  by  whom  that  ballot  is  to  be  wielded. 

The  character  of  the  amendment  proposed  would  of  itself 
arrest  attention  independent  of  the  vital  importance  of  the  gen- 
eral subject. 

The  question  as  to  the  length  of  time  which  a  limited  num- 
ber of  foreigners  should  be  compelled  to  reside  in  the  United 
States  before  this  privilege  should  be  conferred  upon  them  has 


been  sufficient  to  agitate  the  land  throughout  its  length  and 
breadth,  and  to  form  the  basis  of  national  political  organiza- 
tions. 

The  question  of  whether  a  still  smaller  fraction — less  than 
one-tenth  the  numiber  of  the  whole  people — should  have  this 
privilege  conferred  -upon  them,  has  been  the  keynote  of  our 
politics  for  the  past  four  years;  has  been  sufficient  to  cloud  the 
political  horizon  with  the  portents  of  the  renewed  civil  war,  only 
to  be  dispelled,  and  now,  happily  dispelled,  by  that  quiet  and 
all  powerful  voice  which  makes  and  unmakes  constitutions  'and 
laws,  and,  thank  God,  presidents. 

While  I  do  not  deem  that  the  importance  of  these  questions 
has  (been  in  any  degree  overrated,  they  are  yet  dwarfed  into  in- 
significance by  the  grander  question  whioh  has  now  arisen  upon 
this  progressive  Republic. 

This  question,  which  now  confronts  the  American  people  is 
not  whether  a  small  numiber  of  foreigners1  shall  be  made  happy 
by  a  vote,  or  whether  rebels  shall  »be  made  miserable  by  giving 
that  vote  to  a  still  smaller  number  of  native  born  Americans 
who  have  fought  to  sustain  the  government;  but  it  is  whether, 
by  a  simiple  constitutional  declaration,  the  voting  element  of 
this  state,  amd,  by  sequence  of  principle,  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  doubled;  whether  the  political  voice  of  this  state  shall 
be  uttered  iby  30,000  or  toy  15,000,  and  that  of  the  nation  by 
12,000,000  instead  of  6,000,000. 

In  the  outset,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  iburthen  of  argument  is  not  upon  those  who  main- 
tain the  right  of  women  to  vote.  I  think  we  are  at  liberty  to 
resit  until  we  have  heard  a  statement  from  some  gentleman  of 
his  reason  why  they  should  not  vote.  The  women  of  our  land 
are  human  beings.  They  are,  I  presume,  intelligent  human  be- 
ings. Moreover,  sir,  they  are  citizens  of  the  United  States.  They 
are  subject  in  every  respect  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 
Their  lives  and  their  fortunes1  are  held  and  secured  under  the 
conditions  imposed  by  those  laws.  They  are  property  owners, 
and  their  property  rights  are  regulated  by  the  same  constitu- 
tional and  statutory  enactments,  by  the  same  broad  principle  of 
the  common  law  which  regulates  the  property  rights  of  other 

9 


citizens.  Their  womanhood  does  not  shield  them  from  any  of 
the  burthens  which  are  imposed  by  those  laws.  Neither  the 
judicial  tribunal  which  men  have  erected  nor  the  tax  gatherer 
whom  they  have  appointed  are  respecters  of  sex  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  official  functions. 

Now,  sir,  when  I  have  thus  described  a  large  portion  of  our 
community,  dwelling  in  our  midst — American  citizens,  subject 
to  our  laws,  bearing  their  proportions  of  the  burdens  imposed 
by  the  government — what  is  there  lacking  to  the  description  of 
a  qualified  voter,  according  to  the  acceptance  and  received  defi- 
nitions of  the  American  people?  Have  I  not  a  right  to  rest 
upon  this  statement,  and  to  demand  why  she  is  not  as  much  a 
citizen  for  the  purpose  of  suffrage  as  for  other  purposes — -to  de- 
mand to  be  shown  some  general  principal  of  this  government, 
some  fact  in  its  past  experience,  some  maxim  of  its  founders 
and  defenders,  to  justify  this  visible  inconsistency. 

Sir,  if  I  do,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  from  what  class  .of  poli- 
ticians I  should  attend  the  objection. 

If  it  be  made  by  a  Kepublican,  who  professes  to  believe  in 
the  doctrine  of  universal  suffrage  as  a  natural  right,  he  must 
tell  me  by  what  process  of  reasoning  that  system  can  justly  be 
called  universal  which  excludes  from  its  operations  one-half  of 
the  community. 

If  it  be  made  by  a  Democrat,  who  professes-  to  believe,  par 
excellence,  in  a  " white  man's"  government,  I  shall  ask  him  to 
tell  one  by  what  right  he  excludes  from  participation  in  that  gov- 
ernment the  fairest  and  whitest  of  its  citizens. 

If  there  be  gentlemen  wrho  still  cling  to  the  tenets  of  native 
Americanism,  I  shall  ask  of  them  to  explain  how  it  is  that  they 
include  in  their  ostracism,  together  with  the  foreigners  to  whom 
the  genius  of  our  institutions  is  supposed  to  be  a  strange,  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  native  born  who  from  the  cradle  to  matur- 
ity have  sucked  in  republican  ideas  with  their  every  breath, 
and  whose  ears  have  never  been  polluted  by  the  discordant  tones 
of  any  other  tongue  than  the  Anglo  Saxon. 

If  it  be  by  a  gentleman  who  thinks  that  property  has  a 
special  claim  to  be  represented  in  legislation,  and  that  there- 
fore its  pos-session  should  be  a  qualification  for  the  right  of  suf- 

10 


he  must  explain  by  what  process  it  is  that  the  woman  who 
owns  her  farm,  her  mine,  or  her  residence,  is  not  permitted  that 
share  in  the  government  to  which  her  property  entitles  her  in 
the  same  manner  as  other  citizens. 

And  if  there  be  those — and  I  know  there  are  many— who 
think  that  intelligence  is  the  natural  guardian  of  the  suffrage, 
and  that  it  should  be  made  a  qualification  of  the  right  to  vote, 
I  shall  demand  of  them  to  tell  me  how  it  is  that  they  are  willing 
to  permit  the  tens  of  thousands  who  scarcely  reach  the  qualifi- 
cation of  barely  writing  legibly  their  names  and  reading  labor- 
iously the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  yet  are  willing 
to  exclude  the  other  tens  of  thousands  of  women  who  write  our 
book  si  and  teach,  our  schools. 

Sir,  I  do  not  believe  it  will  be  possible  for  any  member  upon 
this  floor  to  oppose  the  adoption  of  this  amendment  without  en- 
countering full  in  the  face  some  proposition  of  which  he  has 
hitherto  been  the  advocate,  and  which  has  been  professedly  the 
guide  of  his  political  action. 

But  I  am  not  disposed  to  be  technical  about  where  lies  tho 
onus  probandi  of  this  argument.  The  advocates  of  this  measure 
do  not  hesitate  to  assume  the  affirmative  of  the  proposition,  and 
to  charge  themselves  with  the  demonstration  that  it  is  both  just 
and  expedient.  We  only  ask  that  in  the  argument,  fundamental 
propositions  in  regard  to  popular  government,  which  have  been 
everywhere  recognized  as  true;  general  principles,  which  have 
had  the  sanction  of  all  our  principal  statesmen;  maxims  which 
have  never  been  heretofore  controverted  by  any  of  our  political 
organizations,  shall  not  now,  for  the  first  time,  be  questioned — 
but  shall  here  as  elsewhere  be  received*  as  true,  and  constitute 
the  basis  of  the  argument. 

Among  the  maxims  which  form  the  creed  of  American  re- 
publicanism there  is  none  more  venerable  by  its  age,  more 
deeply  cherished,  more  axiomatic,  by  reason  of  universal  consent 
than  this:  That  taxation  and  representation  should  go  hand  in 
hand.  As  an  article  of  our  political  faith,  it  is  fundamental.  It 
is  intimately  interwoven  with  the  birth  and  history  of  our  gov- 
ernment. It  was  the  keystone  of  the  arch  of  the  American  Revo- 
lution. "  Taxation  without  representation  is  tyranny!  "  was  the 

11 


cry  which  Otis  and  Adams  and  Quincy  roused  to  resistance  the 
Puritans  of  Massachusetts;  and  with  the  same  cry  Patrick 
Henry  and  Washington  lashed  into  rebellion  the  loyal  colonists 
of  Virginia.  All  else  would  have  been  forgiven  had  this  one  de- 
mand been  conceded.  It  was  the  essence  of  the  contest.  It  was 
made  sacred  by  the  blood  of  a  hundred  battles.  It  was  vindi- 
cated' by  the  final  triumph;  and  it  has  ever  since  been  as  in- 
dellibly  graven  upon  the  minds  of  the  citizens  of  that  Republic 
which  was  the  fruit  of  the  triumph  as  was  the  first  command- 
ment upon  the  tablet  which  Moses  bore  from  the  cloudy  summit 
of  Mount  Sinai. 

Now,  sir,  in  behalf  of  the  women  of  America  I  invoke  the 
application  of  this  doctrine;  and  I -say  that  unless  gentlemen  see7 
fit  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  question  its  truth,  the  argument  is 
complete  with  the  simple  ascertainment  of  whether  or  not  the 
women  of  our  land  are  taxed.  Let  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  the  constitution  of  our  own  state,  the  acts  of  con- 
gress, our  own  statutes,  our  judicial  decisions,  state  and  national, 
answer  the  question.  They  answer  with  common  consent  in  the 
affirmative,  and  there  is  nothing  left  but  for  gentlemen  to  ab- 
jure the  doctrine  or  else  adopt  the  amendment  which  embodies  it. 

' '  Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed. " 

So  says  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  and  so  have  echoed 
the  American  people  for  the  past  ninety  years. 

Are  not  the  women  of  America  governed  within  the  meaning 
of  the  language  of  the  Declaration?  If  we  look  into  our  own 
constitution,  we  shall  find  there  some  few  exceptions  based  upon 
a  distinction  of  sex;  but  we  will  find  that  those  exceptions  are, 
save  in  the  single  matter  of  bearing  arms,  not  where  there  are 
duties  to  enjoin,  'but  invariably  where  there  are  privileges  to 
confer.  We  have  passed  many  statutes  this  session  imposing 
burdens,  and  I  have  yet  to  notice  the  first  one  of  them  in  which 
this  word  li  male, "  which  we  seek  to  drive  from  our  constitution, 
has  been  deemed  necessary  to  be  inserted.  In  the  laws  with 
reference  to  the  procedure  in  our  courts,  in  our  criminal  statutes, 
in  our  revenue  laws,  the  woman  is  legislated  for  equally  with  the 
man.  She  is,  always  and  everywhere,  one  of  the  governed;  and 

12 


yet,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  maxim  which  I  have  quoted,  she  is 
not  allowed  an  opportunity  to  either  consent  or  dissent  from  the 
laws  by  which  she  is  governed.  We,  a  body  of  men,  have  been 
willing  to  sit  here  this  winter  and  make  laws  'binding  not  merely 
on  our  male  constituents  who  send  us  here,  'but  a  body  equal  to 
one-half  of  the  community,  who  have  had  no  voice  in  our  elec- 
tion; wiho  are,  therefore,  unrepresented  upon  this  floor,  and  who 
are  compelled  to  submit  to  whatever  in  the  shape  of  statutes  the 
present  dominating  male  authorities  may  see  fit  to  impose  upon 
them. 

In  the  days  of  the  revolution  this  was  called  tyranny.  The 
author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  so  declared  it  to  be 
in  unmistakable  terms,  and  I  presume  that  it  is  still  tyranny; 
tyranny  meaner  and  more  contemptible  than  that  of  which  our 
fathers  complained— for  theirs,  at  least,  was  a  tyranny  of  men 
over  men,  and  this-  is  that  cheaper  and  more  cowardly  experi- 
ment of  a  tyranny  of  the  physically  strong  over  the  physically 
weak. 

Sir,  I  might  go  on  until  you  and  this  House  were  weary 
enumerating  the  maxims  and  traditions  handed  down  to  us  by 
our  fathers,  which  are  violated  by  this  unjust  exclusion.  But  I 
forbear  for  the  reason  that  it  is  not  here;  it  is  not  in  the  right, 
perfect  as  is  that  right,  of  women  to  vote,  that  I  desire  to  rest 
this  argument.  I  propose  to  go  further,  and  say  that,  independ- 
ent of  all  considerations  of  our  duty,  independent  of  all  consid- 
erations of  political  consistency,  simply  and  solely  as  a  measure 
of  political  expediency,  this  amendment  ought  to  'be  adopted. 
I  advocate  it  less  as  a  boon  to  woman  than  as  a  need  to  society 
and  to  man. 

Sir,  our  suffrage  system,  upon  whioh,  as  I  have  before  said, 
rests  the  future  of  this  Eepublic,  is  dangerously  imperfect. 
There  is  not  an  intelligent  patriot  in  the  land  who  has  not  at 
times  felt  fear  in  his  heart  as  he  has  witnessed  the  details  of  its 
operation.  For  the  past  ninety  years  the  evil  has  been  felt — 
the  existence  of  the  disease  has  <been  recognized  and  from  time 
to  time  spasmodic  efforts  have  been  made  for  its  cure.  To  this 
conviction-,  to  this  well  grounded  aipprehension,  are  to  be  traced 
all  those  movements,  of  which  I  have  heretofore  spoken,  for  a 

13 


proper  qualification,  for  an  educational  .qualification,  for  a 
qualification  by  birth  on  the  soil;  and  whatever  of  temporary 
success  any  one  of  these  or  of  similar  movements  has  had,  it  has 
owed  to  the  fact  that  the  fear  which  inspired  it  was  well 
grounded^  and  they  have  failed  because  that  the  disease  for 
which  they  were  proposed  as  remedies  was  not  understood. 

Sir,  what  is  the  great  evil  of  our  suffrage  system?  It  is  not 
in  our  naturalization  laws;  for  upon  almost  every  important 
question  the  foreign  element  has  been  divided,  and  it  has  always 
been  led  and  marshalled  by  the  native  born.  It  is  not  in  the 
want  of  a  property  qualification;  for  it  is  notorious  that  our 
politics  has  been  but  too  plastic  material  in  the  hands  of  prop- 
erty and  capital.  Neither  is  it  alone  or  principally  in  the  want 
of  intelligence.  The  land  is  full  of  intelligence.  Our  literature 
with  a  century  of  age  ranks  that  of  the  nations  whose  roots  are 
in  antiquity.  Our  daily  journals  are  innumerable  jets  of  intel- 
lect, keeping  the  whole  land  in  a  blaze  of  light.  Intellectual 
talent  crowds  our  deliberative  assemblies,  our  congressional  and 
legislative  halls,  and  is  only  cramped  for  room  for  development. 
Few  if  any  constitutions — few  if  any  laws,  are  bad  because  of  a 
lack  of  sufficient  intelligence,  either  in  the  primary  or  repre- 
sentative body,  to  make  them  good. 

Sir,  I  wish  to  be  understood  on  this  point.  There  is  no  man 
who  can  go  beyond  me  in  an  earnest  desire  to  secure,  or  in  ap- 
preciating the  importance  of,  a  more  thorough  diffusion  of  in- 
telligence among  the  voters  of  our  land.  But  that  which  I  do 
say  is:  That  this  alone  is  not  sufficient;  that  it  is  not  even,  per- 
haps, the  most  important;  that  behind  this  want,  behind  all  these 
alleged  defects  which  I  have  mentioned,  there  is  an  evil  more  rad- 
ical, more  (potential,  more  dangerous  than  all — and  that  may  be 
summed  up  in  one  word:  its -immorality.  The  principal  danger 
to  republican  government  today  is  not  in  the  perception  or  the 
reflection  of  its  suffrage  element,  but  in  its  sentiment  and  in  its 
feeling. 

Examine  the  actual  workings  of  the  system  from  the  lowest 
grade  of  political  organization  up  to  the  most  august  assem- 
blage which  consummates  the  national  will.  The  primary  of  the 
political  party,  the  election,  county,  state  and  national — who 

14 


does  not  dread  their  recurrence?  Who  does  not  sicken  at  the 
ever  succeeding  disgusting  detail  of  their  conduct  and  their 
management1?  The  convention,  the  state  legislature,  the  con- 
gress, even,  of  the  United  States— who  that  has  rights  to  lose 
does  not  often  fear  their  assemblage?  When  right  and  justice 
range  themselves!  on  the  one  side,  and  wrong,  injustice  and  in- 
dividual pro-fit  on  the  other,  who  can  say  that  he  does  not  trem- 
ble for  the  result?  And  why?  Is  it  because  it  is  feared  that 
the  electors'  may  not  comprehend  the  issues  which  are  submitted 
to  them;  that  they  may  be  deceived  in  the  character  of  the  men 
proposed  for  position?  Partially,  perhaps;  but  not  chiefly  so.  Is 
it  'because  it  is  feared  that  the  deliberative  body  will  not  under- 
stand sufficiently  the  nature  of  the  questions  which  it  may  be 
called  upon  to  decide?  So  far  from  this,  that  most  frequently 
it  is  from  those  whose  perceptions  are  keenest  and  quickest  that 
the  most  danger  is  apprehended.  No,  sir,  it  is  not  the  want  01 
mental  capacity  to  see  the  right,  but  the  want  of  the  will  to  do 
it  when  seen  which  today  constitutes  the  weak  point  in  popular 
government;  whicih  we  must  find  the  means  to  fortify  or  consent 
to  see  it  fail. 

The  politics  of  the  country  is  corrupt.  Corruption  in  the 
primary;  corruption  in  the  election;  corruption  in  the  deliber- 
ative body;  corruption  by  money;  corruption  by  bargain  and 
sale  of  position;  corruption  by  all  the  avenues  which  lead  tp  a 
supposed  self-interest.  And  the  fact  that  this  thus  exists  is  even 
loss  dangerous  than  the  fact  that  it  is  tolerated' — condemned, 
perhaps,  by  word,  'but  practically  recognized  as  a  necessary  and 
unavoidable  concomitant  of  the  system.  Politics  is  a  filthy  pool. 
So  says  the  press;  so  say  the  public  orators;  so  says  every  man 
in  the  frankness  of  private  conversation.  And  yet,  so  saying — 
so  admitting  its  filthine-S's,  they  neither  propose  the  means  to 
cleanse  it  nor  yet  hesitate  to  bathe  in  it.  Gfood  men  support  bad 
men  for  office  without  compunction.  Otherwise  moral  men  wit- 
ness the  corruption  of  a  primary  or  an  election  with  no  other  ap- 
parent felling  than  of  solicitude  as  to  its  success.  Politics,  the 
noblest  science  to  which  the  faculties  of  man  can  be  devoted, 
is  thus  degraded  to  the  level  of  a  game — a  tricking,  swindling 
game  at  that;  and  men  play  at  it  as  if  it  were  exempted  from 

15 


the  code  of  morality,  and  as  if  its  very  dishonesty  was  licensed. 
Sir,  is  not  this  dangerous?  does  it  not  menace  not  merely  the 
welfare  but  the  existence  of  our  popular  government?  All  think- 
ing men  will  admit  it.  , 

Is  it,  then,  irremediable?  I  am  confident  that  it  is  not.  But 
the  remedy  which  reaches  it  must  be  radical.  It  cannot  be  done 
by  teaching  or  preaehing.  Exhortation  has  been  tried  in  vain. 
The  press,  the  pulpit  and  the  forum  have  thundered  against  it 
in  vain;  and  their  efforts  will  continue  to  be  in  vain,  for  the  rea- 
son that  they  are  warring  against  the  natural — nay,  the  neces- 
sary, consequence  of  a  defective  and  imperfect  political  system. 

Sir,  I  believe  that  .popular  government  is  something  more 
than  one  of  several  forms,  which  experience  has  shown  to  be  the 
best  adapted  for  the  protection  of  society.  However  favorably  its 
results  may  compare  with  those  of  other  forms,  I  am  unwilling  to 
rest  its  claim  for  supremacy  solely  upon  such  comparison.  1 1  elieve 
that  it  is  the  natural  form  of  government;  that  it  is  goo>d,  be- 
cause man  is  man — 'because  human  nature  is  as  it  is;  that  it  is 
therefore  theoretically  the  only  true  government,  necessarily  of 
superior  excellence  because  alone  responsive  to  the  conditions  of 
humanity.  And,  believing  this,  I  believe  that  all  other  forms, 
monarchical,  imperial,  aristocratic,  or  mixed,  must  yield;  and 
that  popular  government,  that  government  which  is  the  express- 
ion, of  the  aggregated  will  of  all  the  governed,  must,  by  the  in- 
evitable laws  of  progress,  become  universal. 

This  belief,  and  the  hope  which  this  belief  inspires,  has  the 
same  foundation  as  our  faith  in  human  destiny.  I  know  that  if 
the  world  is  to  go  forward,  that  its  society  is  to  advance  instead 
of  retrograde,  it  is  because  that  there  is  in  all  of  its  aggregated 
elements  more  of  good  than  of  evil;  because  that  if  all  of  its 
passions,  good  and  evil,  its  vices  and  its  virtues,  are  allowed  free 
combat,  the  victory  will  be  with  the  right.  To  disbelieve  this  is 
to  impeach.  Providence.  And  therefore,  on  like  grounds,  I  am 
confident  that  there  is  no  sure  guarantee  of  political  success  ex- 
cept in  making  the  government  the  representative  of  all  the 
social  elements.  In  other  words,  politics  must  be  made  a  social 
institution.  I  repeat  it,  sir,  as  the  central  idea  of  all  I  think 
and  all  I  have  to  say  upon  this  subject;  that"  which  I  would  like 

16 


to  see  written  at  the  head  of  every  one  of  our  journals;  which  I 
would  like  to  see  inscribed  as  the  first  line  of  every  one  of  our 
political  platforms:  POLITICS  MUST  BE  MADE  A  SOCIAL 
INSTITUTION.  The  intellect,  the  passions,  the  sentiments, 
which,  in  all  of  their  diversity  and  in  all  of  their  completeness, 
characterize  and  actuate  society,  must  be  incorporated  into  and 
made  to  operate  the  political  system;  and  then,  and  then  alone, 
\vo  shall  have  the  same' pledge  of  its  excellence,  of  its  continued 
advancement  toward  perfection,  which  now  inspires  the  hope  of 
the  philanthropist  that  the  world  will  not  relapse  into  barbarism. 

Entertaining  these  views  I  find  the  palpable  cause  the  plain 
explanation  of  these  admitted  defects  of  our  political  system,  in 
its  incompleteness;  in  the  lack  of  its  natural  constituent  ele- 
ments. 

Its  most  glaring  fault  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  gross  immorality; 
and  yet  we  have  studiously  excluded  from  that  system  the  dis- 
tinctively moral  element  of  society.  That  which  we  most  want 
is  a  political  conscience;  and  we  have  carefully  barred  out  from 
the  political  domain  the  distinctively  conscientious  social  ele- 
ment. With  the  power  given  to  us,  with  the  material  placed  in 
our  hands,  by  the  God  of  Nature,  to  have  given  to  this  system  a 
symmetrical  form,  we  have  undertaken  to  revise  His  decrees,  we 
have  rejected  the  proportions  which  He  had  fixed;  and  it  is  net 
strange  that  we  have  made  it  a  deformed  monster. 

Sir,  I  shall  not  enter  into  any  disquisition  there  to  show  that 
woman  is  by  nature  more  moral,  more  conscientious  than  man. 
I  appeal  to  the  observation  of  each  one  who  hears  me;  I  appeal- 
to  the  teachings  of  history  in  all  time;  I  appeal  to  the  received 
opinions  of  every  age  and  every  people;  to  the  declarations  of 
universal  literature.  He  who  contradicts  it  must  contradict  all 
these  witnesses.  In  mind  as1  in  body,  to  man  is  given  strength; 
to  woman,  beauty;  to  man  force,  to  woman  delicacy;  to  man 
grossness,  to  woman  refinement.  Let  the  father,  the  brother,  the 
husband,  say  whether  the  feminine  sentiments  are  not  more 
virtuous,  whether  the  feminine  instincts  are  not  more  pure,  than 
his  own.  The  romancer  who  should  write  it  otherwise  would  not 
be  read;  the  actor  who  should  dare  to  depict  otherwise  would  be 
hissed  from  the  stage;  the  poet  who  would  sing  it  otherwise 

17 


would  make  discord  in  Nature's  music;  the  painter  who  should 
venture  to  portray  it  otherwise  would  make  art  hideous. 

To  this  truth  we  owe  our  civilization.  Just  in  proportion  as 
scope  has  been  given  to  the  nature  of  woman;  jusit  in  proportion 
as  the -sphere  of  her  action  and  influence  has  'been  enlarged,  in 
any  country,  in  any  clime,  communities,  states  and  nations  have 
mounted  toward  perfection.  Her  very  presence  is  to  vice  and 
pollution,  the  east  wind  which  blasts  its  growth;  and  wherever 
she  goes,  in  her  footsteps  spring  the  roses  of  virtue  and  inno- 
cence. Woman  is  the  great  social  purifier.  Why  should  she  not 
be  the  great  political  purifier?  Politics-  is  a  filthy  pool;  and 
shall  we  let  it  fester  and  stagnate  until  the  slime  of  its  corrup- 
tion becomes  so  offensive  that  even  good  men  will  shun  its  con- 
tact, or  shall  we  cleanse  it  by  pouring  into  it  and  through  it  a 
fresh  and  living  stream  of  virtue?  Shall  we  continue  to  live  in 
and  breathe  the  foul  vapors  of  this  political  dungeon,  or  shall  we 
open  the  portals  and  bid  enter,  with  women,  the  sweet  light  and 

pure  air? 

Sir,  as  it  is  theoretically  correct  that  there  can  be  no  true 
popular  government  without  this  element,  so,  practically,  in  the 
light  of  a  sad  experience,  the  great  want  of  our  political  system 
is  woman.  We  want  her  refinement;  we  want  her  taste;  we  want 
her  sentiment;  we  want  her  conscience;  we  want  her  warm  heart 
and  her  pure  instinct.  Let  us  have  these,  and  the  new  political 
form  wihich  it  will  create  will  be  to  that  of  the  present  day  what 
the  church  congregation  is  to  the  street  mob;  what  the  private 
parlor  is  to  the  drinking  saloon;  what  the  theater  is  to  the  me- 
lodeon;  what  the  lecture  room  is  to  the  co'ck-pit. 

"Is  there  any  gentleman  who  will  say  that  -he  does  not  believe 
that  if  women  voted  we  should  have  better  officers  than  are  now 
elected  to  position?  It  is  a  shamefulfact  that  morality  is  con- 
sidered scarcely  a  proper,  much  less  a  necessary  qualification  for 
public  life.  There  is  not  a  gentleman  in  this  room  who  'cannot 
within  the  limits  of  his  own  observation,  aye,  within  the  political 
history  of  this  yet  young  state,  point  to  men  wtyo  have  been  ele- 
vated to  high  positions,  who,  if  women  had  had  their  voice, 
would  never  have  been  able  to  crowd  their  names  beyond  the 
threshold  of  a  nominating  convention. 

18 


We  want  her,  not  merely  to  give  us  hotter  officers,  l;ut  we 
want  her  distinctive  feminine  influence  in  our  legislation.  Woman 
is  the  educator  of  our  children.  Why  should  she  not  have  a 
voice  in  the  making  of  the  laws  which  regulate  their  education? 
Who  so  well  fitted  as  she  to  form,  regulate,  and  foster  the  school 
system  of  a  people?  And  who  does  not  believe  that  if  women 
had  had  the  management,  or  even  their  share  of  the  manage- 
ment, there  would  not  have  been  today  more  than  thirty  thou- 
sand dollars  in  the  school  fund  of  the  State  of  Nevada?  She 
is  a  parent;  and  why  is  she  excluded  from  a  voice  in  the  legisla- 
tion which  regulates  the  parental  relations?  She  is-  a  wife;  and 
by  what  right  or  with  what  probability  of  justice  is  it  that  it  is 
left  to  husbands  alone  to  frame  the  laws  of  marriage  and  di- 
vorce? The  whole  of  our  system  of  public  charities;  the  care 
of  our  orphans  (and  here  I  disclaim  any  wish  to  infringe  on  the 
peculiar  prerogatives  of  my  colleague  from  Storey,  Mr.  Welch), 
of  the  deaf,  the  dumb,  the  blind,  the  insane,  and  the  poor,  falls 
naturally  within  the  domain  of  female  guardianship.  Our  crim- 
inal statutes,  which  punisih  alike  the  woman  with  the  man, 
should  be  made,  without  distinction  of  sex,  by  all  of  those  who 
are  subject  to  their  pains  and  their  penalties;  and,  believe  me, 
they  would  be  better  today  if  in  their  making  the  tender  heart 
of  the  woman  tempered  with  mercy  the  rough  justice  of  man. 
We  need  sometimes  taste  in  our  legislation,  and  I  would  like  to 
ask  of  my  friends,  the  delegation  from  Ormslby,  if  they  would 
not  prefer  to  leave  to  the  women  of  this  state  to  say  whether  we 
should  sit  here  and  legislate  in  this  inconvenient,  dingy,  uncouth 
hall,  or  whether  yonder  plaza  should  be  crowned  by  a  stately 
edifice  whose  graceful  architecture  should  make  it  a  fitting 
temple  for  the  beauty  as  well  as  the  talent  of  the  land. 

I  have  now,  sir,  given  some  reasons,  which  to  me  seem  to  be 
of  weight  why  this  amendment  should  be  adopted,  and  it  only 
remains  to  notice  some  of  the  objections  which  are  made. 

First,  it  is  said  that  woman  is  mentally  inferior,  and  is  there- 
by disqualified  from  exercising  this  privilege.  Even  if  this  were 
true,  it  would  detract  nothing  from  the  weight  of  the  argument 
which  has  been  made.  Intellect  is  not  the  sole  qualification  of  a 
voter.  It  is  doubtful  even  if  it  is  the  most  important  of  those 

19 


qualifications.  We  want,  as  I  have  said,  in  our  suffrage  element, 
the  whole  of  human  nature.  We  want  the  sentiments  as  well  as 
the  perceptions;  the  heart  that  feels  as  well  as  the  intellect  that 
thinks.  And,  sir,  as  for  me,  I  would  prefer  today  to  put  the  bal- 
lot into  the  hand  of  that  woman  the  most  illiterate  of  the  land, 
whose  conscience  was  quick  and  whose  instincts  were  pure,  than 
in  that  of  the  man  profoundest  in  wisdom,  brightest  in  talent, 
who  never  similes  over  a  cradle  and  never  weeps  over  a  tomb. 

But  this  accusation  of  mental  disqualification  is  a  vile  slan- 
der. I  would  ask  no  heavier  punishment  for  the  member  on  this 
floor  who  shall  dare  to  make  it,  than  to  put  the  pen  in  the  hand 
of  some  one  of  the  thousand  American  women  whom  he  traduces, 
that  his  ignorant  vanity  might  receive  from  her  the  word  la?hing 
which  it  merits.  Can  the  gentleman  who  makes  this  objection 
write  a,s  good  a  book  of  poems  as  Mrs.  Hannah  More?  Can  he 
give  us  as  good  a  series  of  romances  as  Mrs.  Southworth?  Will 
he  measure  art  and  .genius  with  Rachel?  Will  he  attempt  to 
compete  in  the  field  of  literature  with  Madame  De  Stal,  or  Mrs. 
Sigourney,  or  with  the  hundreds  of  others  whose  articles  fill  our 
magazines  and  whose  books  crowd  our  libraries?  Would  he  even 
like  to  suibmit  to  an  examination  upon  the  rudiments  of  elemen- 
tary science  before  one  of  the  ten  thousand  American  school 
mistresses  who  today  are  training  future  legislators  to  express 
in  proper  English  their  contempt  for  their  teachers?  Sir,  against 
this  charge  the  women  of  America  are  abundantly  able  to  defend 
themselves!. 

Then  it  is  said— and  this  is  the  objection  most  often  repeated 
— that  in  entering  politics-  woman  is  passing  out  of  her  sphere. 
The  remark  is  somewhat  vague,  and  probably  for  that  reason 
sierves  fully  as  well  the  purpose  of  the  objector.  If  I  am  to 
hear  it  repeated  on  this  floor,  I  shall  at  least  ask  of  the  gentle- 
man who  does  so  to  define  for  us  what  is  woman's  sphere. 

So  far  as  I  have  heard  it  elaborated  in  private  discussion,  I 
should  take  their  idea  of  woman's  sphere  to  be  something  like 
this:  If  the  woman  be  poor,  it  is  her  sphere  to  do  the  man's 
cooking,  to  mend  the  man's  clothes,  and  to  bear  the  man's  chil- 
dren. 

If  she  be  rich,  it  is  her  sphere  to  dress  elaborately,  to  shop 

20 


expensively,  and  to  talk  trifles  voluminously.  In  the  one  case  a 
slave;  in  the  other  a  toy. 

By  what  warrant  does  any  gentleman  thus  attempt  to  fix  the 
limit  of  the  range  of  activity  within  which  the  capacity  of  any 
class  of  society  is  to  be  limited?  By  virtue  of  her  descent  from 
Adam,  'by  virtue  of  her  human  nature,  by  virtue  of  her  citizen- 
ship in  a  free  Republic,  she  is  entitled  to  do,  and  it  is  proper  for 
her  to  do,  all  that  which  it  pleases  her  to  do;  all  that  which  her 
God^given  faculties  enalble  her  to  do,  restricted  only  by  those  in- 
exorable limits  of  right  and  wrong  which  restrain  man  equally 
with  herself. 

The  idea  of  these  gentlemen  seems  to  be  that  a  person's 
sphere  is  to  continue  to  do  that  which  they  are  chiefly  engaged 
in  doing  at  present.  With  equal  logic  might  spheres  be  fixed  to 
other  classes  of  society  upon  this  principle;  and  it  might  be  said 
that  the  sphere  of  the  Irishman  was  to  build  railroads,  the  sphere 
of  the  German  to  keep  lager  beer  saloons,  the  sphere  of  the 
Yankee  to  peddle  clocks,  and  the  sphere  of  Governors  to  send 
veto  messages  to  refractory  and  unprincipled  Legislatures  (mer- 
riment). 

Sir,  if  this  formula  means  anything,  it  is  this:  That  there  is 
something  in  the  nature  of  woman  incompatible  with  the  exer- 
cise of  this  privilege.  Let  us  examine  it. 

I  know  of  but  two  conditions  essential  to  the  easting  of  a 
vote;  one,  the  physical  act  of  walking  to  the  polls  and  deposit- 
ing the  ballot;  the  other,  the  previous  preparation  necessary  to 
enable  one  to  deposit  it  wisely. 

Now  as  to  the  physical  act:  No  gentleman  who  has  retired 
fatigued  with  pleasure  at  2  o  'clock  in  the  morning  from  a  Oarson 
ball  will  dou<bt  that  the  ladies  have  the  physical  strength  of  limb 
which  is  necessary  to  enable  them  to  walk  to  the  polling  places, 
situate  however  remotely  within  the  limits  of  a  township,  and 
there  deposit  a  ballot.  And  if  it  were  a  question  of  the  conven- 
tion, or  the  legislature,  no  gentleman,  unless  he  believes  that  en- 
tering into  public  life  will  impair  the  voice,  will  doubt  their 
physical  capacity  to  say  yea  and  nay,  and  very  much  more,  either 
in  a  deliberative  body  or  anywhere  else.  That  difficulty  there- 
fore is  not  in  the  way.  She  is  by  nature  physically  fitted  to  do 

21 


these  acts.  The  disqualification  then,  is>  for  the  mental  operation. 
To  cast  a  vote  wisely  it  is  necessary  that  she  should  examine, 
weigh,  and  decide  the  question  of  policy  on  which  she  is  called 
to  act;  and  if  this  is  unfeminine,  then  the  objection  is  good. 

It  is  admitted,  I  believe,  that  it  is  not  unfeminine  for  women 
to  read,  to  think,  to  study,  and  even  to  discuss.  Why  then  un- 
feminine  for  them  to  read,  think  upon,  study,  and  discuss  politi- 
cal subjects?  The  science  of  human  government,  the  highest 
and!  noblest  as  it  is  the  most  complex  and  difficult  of  all 
sciences,  what  is  there  in  its  character  to  offend  the  delicacy, 
to  taint  the  refinement,  or  to  debauch  the  morals  of  a  woman? 
Sir,  politics  has  not  been  in  the  past  by  any  means  a  distinc- 
tively male  institution.  Where  shall  we  find  more  world  re- 
nowned politicians — aye,  more  eminent  statesman,  than  Elizabeth 
of  England,  Catherine  of  Russia,  Maria  Theresa  of  Austria,  and 
Isabella  of  Spain?  And  yet  I  have  never  heard  that  any  one  of 
those  distinguished  sovereigns  sacrificed  to  success  in  public  life 
any  of  their  womanly  qualities1.  In  the  reign  of  Louis  XV  and 
Louis  XVI,  it  is  notorious  that  the  women  of  France  controlled 
its  politics;  and  yet,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  court  history  of  its 
times,  they  did  not  thereby  lose  any  of  their  feminine  attrac- 
tions. The  virgin  queen  who  ruled  England  with  a  singleness 
of  will  which  no  other  monarch  before  or  after  her  has  dared 
to  djsiiplay,  at  whose  word  Eurorpe  tremlbled,  was  no  less  the  high- 
born lady  in  the  drawing-room  of  the  palace;  no  less  the  tender- 
hearted woman  when  receiving  with  haughty  carriage,  but  heav- 
ing bosom,  the  homage,  half  of  a  subject,  half  of  a  lover,  of  the 
knightly  Hastings.  Her  successor,  the  present  monarch  of  Eng- 
land, does  not  hesitate  to  enter  Parliament  and  address,  on  the 
gravest  political  subjects,  the  lords  and  gentlemen  of  her  realm. 
And  yet  she  will  go  down  to  history — she  will  live  in  the  hearts 
of  the  English  people,  less  as  a  queen,  than  as  a  model  wife  and 
mother.  Sir,  we  have  in  our  own  time  in  our  own  country,  an  exam- 
ple more  illustrious  still.  Next  to  William  H.  Seward,  the  most  far- 
seeing  political  philosopher  of  this  age;  next  to  Abraham  Lincoln, 
the  great  administrator  in  whose  'sympathetic  nature  the  Nation 
seemed  to  unfold  and  develop  itself,  the  person  who  has  exer- 
cised the  largest  influence  in  the  grand  political  revolution  of 

22 


the  past  fifteen  years,  by  which  slavery,  that  living  lie  upon 
popular  government,  has  been  blotted  out  from  the  list  of  Amer- 
ican institutions,  is  a  woman.  With  her  pen  in  hand  in  her  study 
at  Cincinnati,  surrounded  by* the  family  circle  which  she  adorned, 
Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe  told  the  story  of  Uncle  Tom,  of  Eva, 
of  Legree  and  Sinclair;  and  as  it  went  to  every  corner  of  the  Na- 
tion, as  it  was  perused  and  pondered  over  by  every  fireside,  as 
the  indignation  mounted,  the  cheek  flushed  or  the  tear  fell  from 
each  individual  of  ten  thousand  theatrical  audiences  who  wit- 
ness its  representation  in  dramatic  form  upon  the  stage,  a  mil- 
lion prejudices  were  loosened,  a  million  hearts  were  touched  with 
conviction,  and  the  eyes  of  the  Nation  were  open  to  see,  and 
their  consciences  to  accept,  the  great  political  truth  which  in- 
volved the  destiny  of  the  Republic.  Gentlemen  may  sneer  at  this 
woman  politician;  they  may  call  her  strong  minded — an  accusa- 
tion which  they  may  <be  very  sure  she  will  never  make  against 
them  in  return;  they  may  pompously  declare  her  to  have  been 
out  of  her  sphere;  they  may  arrogantly  deny  her  the  vote  which 
they  give  to  thousands  too  ignorant  to  read  her  book;  but  as  for 
me,  I  feel  that  I  would  be  honored  to  go  before  her  on  my  bended 
knees  and  be  permitted  to  kiss  the  hem  of  her  robe  in  grateful 
reverence  for  her  genius  and  her  service  to  my  country.  fis^e^ 

It  is  next  objected  that  woman  will  be  contaminated  by  poli- 
tics. I  hope  I  have  been  able  to  show  that  if  this  is  true  it  has 
no  natural  cause;  that  this  effect  does  not  flow  from  anything 
either  in  the  nature  of  woman  or  in  the  nature  of  political  ques- 
tions. It  is  therefore,  if  true  at  all,  accidental  and  superficial. 
The  objector  points  to  our  primaries,  to  our  conventions,  to  our 
street  political  gatherings',  to  our  elections,  and  triumphantly 
asks:  "Are  these  fit  scenes  for  female  participation?"  Sir,  I 
admit  that  they  are  not.  No  man  shall  go  beyond  me  in  charac- 
terizing and  execrating  these  disgusting  scenes  which  annually 
disgrace  the  community,  the  state  and  the  nation.  And  if  tlte 
political  field  is  always  to  remain  the  dirtiest  slough  of  vulgar- 
ity and  immorality  which  it  now  is,  then  I  agree  that  it  neither 
is  nor  e>ver  will  be  fit  for  the  presence  of  woman.  I  will  go  far- 
ther: It  neither  is  nor  ever  will  be  fit  for  the  presence  of  re- 
spectable men.  The  difference  between  these  gentlemen  and  my- 

23 


self  is,  that  they  accept  this  condition  of  things  as  irremediable. 
They  are  willing  to  continue  to  wallow  in  this  filthy  slough. 
I  propose  to  give  it  a  carpet  of  green  herbage  and  flowers,  so 
that  neither  gentleman  nor  lady  may  fear  to  set  their  foot 
upon  it. 

The  real  question  upon  this  point  is:  Will  women  lift  up  poli- 
tics, or  will  politics  drag  down  women!  They  profess  to  fear, 
and  I  believe  they  do  fear,  that  woman  will  be  made  a  victim. 
I  hail  her  as  a  savior.  And  uipon  this  issue  I  appeal  to  the  record 
of  experience.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  descend  into  details  at  this 
stage  of  the  discussion,  but  I  will  content  myself  with  this 
broad  assertion:  That  wherever,  in  any  age  or  country,  among 
any  people,  the  sphere  of  female  influence  and  action  has  been 
enlarged — wherever  virtuous  woman  has  been  permitted  to  enter 
into  any  new  walk  of  life,  whether  in  the  domain  of  business  or 
of  amusement,  of  religion,  of  art,  or  of  science,  her  womanly 
nature  has  not  been  modified, — her  distinctively  feminine  quali- 
ties have  not  been  impaired  by  the  new  conditions  into  which 
she  has  been  introduced;  but  on  the  contrary,  she  has  been  the 
agent,  sihe  has  always  been  the  moving  power,  by  which  thoso 
conditions  have  been  elevated  to  the  level  of  her  womanhood.  I 
defy  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  to  point  to  the  exception;  and 
until  the  exception  is  found — nay,  until  they  are  sufficiently 
numerous  to  control  the  general  rule,  I  have  a  right  to  say  logi- 
cally that  as  it  has  /been  in  the  past  so  it  will  be  in  the  future,  as 
it  has  been  with  other  subjects  s»o  it  will  be  with  politics;  its 
grossness  and  immorality  will  not  stain  her  poire  vestments,  'but 
like  the  virgin  snow  on  yonder  mountain,  the  mantle  of  her 
womanhood  will  cover  up  its  uncouth  features  and  bury  from 
view  its  ugly  deformity. 

Sir,  I  have  an  ideal  of  an  election  day  in  which  woman  should 
take  a  part.  The  morning  sun  which  rose  upon  it  would  not 
shine  upon  barricades  erected  in  every  ward  of  our  cities  and 
towns.  An  army  of  sipecial  policemen  would  not  be  stationed  at 
every  corner  of  our  streets.  The  good  citizen,  as  he  left  his 
home,  would  not  feel  it  necessary,  for  the  first  time  in  the  year, 
to  bind  his  pistol  to  Ms  waist.  Each  of  the  polling  places  would 
not  be  surrounded  by  a  howling  mob.  The  voter  who  desires  to 

24 


exercise  liis  privilege  would  not  be  compelled  to  run  a  gauntlet; 
to  be  stared  at  by  lines  of  brutal  menacing'  faces;  to  have  his 
oars  insulted  by  the  clink  of  the  circulating  medium  which  af- 
fects the  exchange  between  an  elector's  vote  and  his  so-called 
political  principles,  and  every  finer  feeling  of  nature  outraged 
by  the  coarse  vulgarity  of  that  vile  horde  of  human  vermin  who 
seem  to  spawn  on  every  election  day,  as  if  there  were  something 
in  its  very  atmosphere  fitted  to  vitalize  and  warm  them  into  life. 
No,  sir.  The  day  of  which  I  am  speaking  should  in  its  gen- 
eral features  be  a  mixture  of  the  national  holiday  and  the  Sab- 
bath of  resit;  a  day  wearing  the  external  apparel  fitted  for  one 
on  which  .an  agreeable  privilege  was  to  be  exercised  as  well  as 
a  solemn  duty  to  be  performed.  It  should  be  ushered  in  by  the 
peal  of  bells  from  every  tower  and  steeple — the  streets  should 
don  their  gayest  attire,  and  the  air  be  sonorous  with  swelling 
notes  of  the  national  anthem.  Over  each  of  the  polling  places 
should  float  the  national  emblem,  and  the  steps  which  lead  up  to 
the  portals  through  which  the  votes  were  to  be  received  should 
be  as  broad,  as  free  of  access,  and  as  inviting  as  are  those  which 
now  lead  to  the  entrances  of  our  theaters  and  our  churches. 
Thither  should  flock  not  a  mob,  but  society.  Thither  the  young 
man,  just  turned  his  majority,  should  conduct  the  mother  who 
from  his  infancy  had  trained  as  well  his-  political  ideas  as  his 
moral  sentiments.  Thither  the  husband  should  conduct  his  wife, 
proud  of  her  independence  and  her  equality.  Thither  the  maiden 
should  be  led  by  her  lover — the  loving  bond  between  them  tied 
more  tightly  by  the  consecrating  thought  that  they  were  to- 
gether performing  a  responsible  duty.  There  would  be  discus- 
sion, but  no  brawlsi — for  gallantry  is  instinctive  in  the  American 
breast,  and,  whatever  may  be  his  condition  in  life,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  a  lady  he  is  a  gentleman.  She  would  pass  without  insult 
or  annoyance  to  and  from  the  polls  as  she  now  passes  without  in- 
s»ult  or  annoyance  through  our  streets  where  she  daily  comes  in 
contact  with  every  class  and  element  which  she  would  encounter 
in  the  performance  of  this  duty.  In  the  atmosphere  of  refine- 
ment with  which  woman's  presence  would  surround  the  circum- 
stances of  the  day,  the  shameless  vulgarity,  the  brazen  corrup- 
tion, which  now  claim  it  as  their  carnival,  could  not  live  at  her 

25 


approach,  and  their  votaries  would  slink  away  as  beasts  of  prey 
skulk  to  their  lairs  before  the  morning  light;  and  when  the  sun 
went  down  it  would  set  upon  a  state,  a  nation,  rejoicing  in  the 
certainty  of  the  triumph,  of  the  right,  because  the  decision  pro- 
nounced would  have  been  the  utterance  of  a  universal  humanity. 
Who,  sir,  would  not  pray  for  the  dawn  of  an  election  day  resem- 
bling this! 

Lastly,  sir,  it  is  said  that  woman  does*  not  want  to  vote.  To 
speak  more  correctly  it  should  be  said  that  some  women  do  not 
want  to  vote.  And  if  there  be  one  who  desires  to  exercise  this 
privilege,  what  right  has  man,  what  right  has  a  sister  woman,  to 
object  to  its  exercise? 

But  this  is  no  proposition  to  compel  woman  to  vote.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  amendment  proposed  which  forces  upon  any 
woman  the  exercise  of  this  privilege.  It  simiply  proposes  to  mal<e 
her  a  free  agent;  that  which  she  is  not  at  present.  Is  it  possi- 
ble that  before  a  Republican  audience  I  have  still  to  expose  the 
fallacy  of  the  stale  Democratic  argument  that  when  liberty  of 
personal  action  is  given  it  necessarily  follows  that  all  sorts  of 
actions  will  be  performed  without  reference  to  their  justness  or 
propriety?  Have  I  again  to  refute  the  miserable  proposition 
howled  for  the  past  four  years  from  every  Democratic  stump 
that  unless  there  were  constitutions  and  statutes  interdicting  the 
intermixtures  of  races  and  colors,  all  the  ladies  in  the  land  would 
engage  in  indiscriminate  misceigination  1  Sir,  I  hope  we  have 
had  enough  of  that  kind  of  argument.  Political  freedom  does 
not  constrain  to  do  any  act  which  is  either  wrong,  indecent,  or 
revolting  to  the  taste.  That  man  insults  the  sex  who  says  that 
it  is  necessary  that  woman,  should  ibe  restrained  by  constitutional 
inhibition  to  prevent  her  from  violating  her  womanly  nature  and 
from  unsexing  herself.  That  woman  should  be  ashamed  of  her- 
self who  would  tolerate  in  her  presence  the  assertion,  that  if  we 
should  remove  this  constitutional  prohibition,  and  leave  her  free 
as  we  are  free — free  to  exercise  or  to  refrain  from  exercising 
this  privilge— free  as  to  the  extent,  the  time  and  manner  of  its 
exercise — she  would  exercise  it  any  otherwise  than  as  the  Cir- 
cumstances by  which  she  was  surrounded,  her  relations  to  other 

26 


persons  and  other  duties,  her  own  good  judgment,  her  refined  and 
feminine  taste,  would  permit  and  dictate  to  'her  to  do. 

But  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  fact  in  relation  to  the  wishes 
of  our  women  on  this  subject,  is  much  misrepresented.  They  are 
very  chary  of  their  expressions,  for  they  are  under  bondage  to 
the  opinion  of  their  fathers,  husbands,  and  brothers,  who  consti- 
tute at  present  their  guardians  of  mind  as  well  as  of  body.  Sir, 
if  she  has  this  alleged  repugnance,  it  is  a  false  idea;  and  for  her 
sake,  as  well  as  ours,  I  hope  it  will  speedily  be  abandoned.  I 
wish  my  voice  were  loud  enough  to  reach  the  ear  of  every 
woman,  particularly  of  every  wife  in  the  land,  that  I  might  tell 
her  that  to  a  delusive  prejudice,  miscalled  delicacy,  she  is  sacri- 
ficing the  highest  realization  of  'her  womanhood.  I  would  bid 
her  to  cease  to  be  the  petted  toy,  the  flattered  idol  of  her  hus- 
band, and  to  become  his  partner  and  associate;  to  cease  to  be 
satisfied  with  being  the  consolation  of  an  idle  hour,  and  aspire 
to  'become  the  partaker  of  those  earnest  thoughts  and  actions 
which  constitute  his  real  life — to  sihare  his  joys  and  sorrows,  not 
by  a  simile  or  a  tear,  but  by  comprehending  and  becoming  a  part 
of  them.  I  would  tell  her  that  there  is  no  love,  no  admiration, 
like  the  love  and  admiration  which  equal  bestows  on  equal;  that 
her  highest  happiness  is  in  the  exhaustion  of  all  her  capacities; 
that  the  most  solid  joys  come  not  except  with  the  acceptance  of 
the  highest  responsibilities.  And  I  would  bid  her,  as  she  aspires 
to  the  full  development  of  her  womanly  nature,  to  break  down 
this  barrier  to  enter  this  field  of  earnest  thought  and  action,  to 
pass  fearlessly  with  man  into  this  broad  and  stirring  domain  of 
practical  human  government,  to  fijght  with  him  its  stormy  bat- 
tles, to  s"hare  with  him  its  intoxicating  triumphs,  and  thus  crown- 
ing 'her  beauty  'with  usefulness,  her  purity  with  wisdom,  to  be 
worshipped  by  a  man  no  longer  as  an  idol,  but  as  an  angel. 

Now,  sir,  a  few  words  and  I  am  done;  and  those  words  shall 
be  of  advice  to  my  friends  who  surround  me. 

To  -my  Democratic  friends  I  would  say:  You  ought  without 
hesitation  to  accept  this  proposition,  for  it  is  novel,  and  your 
great  political  want  is  something  new.  It  has  a  tendency,  how- 
ever remote,  to  break  up  present  political  parties;  and  your  most 
pressing  necessity,  if  you  wish  to  count  for  anything  in  politics, 

27 


is  that  present  political  parties  should  be  broken  up.  You  have 
been  a  lonig  time  excluded  from  the  flesh  pots.  You  have  trod 
for  many  weary  years  the  thorny,  tedious1,  barren  path  of  a 
hopeless  minority.  You  will  continue  to  tread  it  just  as  long  as 
the  present  issues  which  now  divide  Republicans  and  Democrats 
shall  constitute  the  basis  of  political  organization.  You  are  in 
the  dungeon  of  despair.  Here  is  opened  a. door  of  escape;  a 
hope— nay,  I  may  s>ay,  I  think,  a  certainty,  of  indulging  in  that 
long  untasted  luxury:  Success.  Abandon  the  African  whom  you 
say  you  do  not  like  and  accept  the  woman  against  whom,  I  am 
sure,  none  of  your  tastes  revolt.  Forsake  those  ancient  relics, 
your  devotion  to  which  has  ruined  you,  and  accept  an  article  of 
modern  manufacture  which  has  the  merit  of  utility.  Come  up  out 
of  the  valley  of  dry  bones  and  enter  the  field  where  men  live  and 
act.  Cut  loose  from  your  dead  issues — those  putrid  corpses  to 
which  you  'have  been  bound  for  the  past  ten  years,  and  accept 
the  embrace  of  a  vital,  living  form,  and  I  promise  you,  in  addi- 
tion to  that  greatest  of  all  Democratic  blessings,  political  power, 
that  other  boon,  which  you  ought  most  to  crave  from  the  Ameri- 
can people — forgetfulness  of  the  past. 

To  my  Republican  friends  I  say:  Look  to  your  laurels.  They 
are  green  and  fresh,  and  magnificently  abundant,  but  they  may 
wither  and  fade,  and  your  brow  yet  go  uncrowned,  unless  fresh 
garlands  are  gathered.  With  us  the  past  at  least  is  secure.  I 
would  not  barter  for  the  highest  political  preferment  which  this 
nation  can  bestow,  the  satisfaction  of  the  thought  that  I  have  a 
part,  however  insignificant — that  I  share,  however  humbly,  the 
rich  glories  which  cluster  around  the  history  of  our  yet  youthful 
party.  But  we  must  rememiber  that  we  have  succeeded,  not  be- 
cause we  were  the  Republican  party,  ibut  because  we  were  right. 
We  have  won  because,  in  a  progressive  age,  we  have  been  t>he 
party  of  progress;  because  when  the  Nation  was  marching  we 
have  marched  in  the  van;  because  we  had  the  courage  to  pluck 
out,  from  the  overwhelming  mass  of  prejudice  in  which  it  was 
buried,  a  principle  of  eternal  truth — -dared  boldly  to  inscribe  it 
on  our  banners  and  to  march  to  battle  with  the  watchword  of 
universal  freedom. 

Remember  Lot's  wife,  and  look  not  back.    Beware  of  a  halt. 

28 


If  we  stop,  the  world,  the  nation,  will  not  stop.  The  inexorable 
law  of  progress  will  not  modify  itself  to  suit  our  movements;  it 
will  not  stay  its  operation  through  respect  either  for  our  party 
name  or  our  past  achievements,  but  will  as  relentlessly  consign 
us  to  defeat  and  oblivion  as  it  has  for  the  same  cause  there  con- 
signed our  Democratic  predecessors. 

Here  is  the  great  question  of  the  hour.  I  beseech  you  to  lay 
aside  your  prejudices  for  its  consideration.  Be  not  appalled 
either  by  its  novelty  or  its  magnitude.  Let  your  intellects  weigh 
it;  let  your  sentiments  appreciate  it;  let  your  reason  judge  it; 
and  if  you  find  it  to  .be,  as  I  believe  you  will  find  it  to  be,  right, 
then  spring  again  to  the  call;  nerve  yourselves  for  a  new  ad- 
vance; gird  your  loins  to  scale  another  height;  write  another 
great  truth  on  your  banner;  let  the  thrilling  cry  of  " Onward M 
ring  again  through  your  ranks/ and  plant  another  bright  star  in 
'the  already  growing  firmament  where  shine  your  past  triumphs. 

If  you  fail,  if  you  have  found  already  a  resting  place,  those 
of  us  whose  judgment  and  conscience  bid  us  still  to  go  forward 
will  be  compelled,  sorrowfully  and  tearfully,  but  still  compelled 
to  say  farewell,  and  grieved  at  your  desertion;  but  confident  of 
ultimate  success,  we  will  bide  our  time. 

(At  the  conclusion  of  his  speech,  Mr.  Hillyer  was  greeted 
with  round  after  round  of  applause.) 


Stockton,  Calif. 

PAT.  JAN  21,  1908 


